2010 22
Solomon Kane
Robert E. Howard has gone down in history as the creator of Conan The Barbarian, one of the most enduring creations in all of fantasy literature. Not a bad legacy, but far from his only accomplishment. Through the pages of Weird Tales and other pulp magazines of the 1930s, he offered a whole bunch of unreconstructed adventures and a variety of tough-guy heroes. Solomon Kane is one of them. A puritan traveler with a dark past and a bad attitude, he always used to stumble across pirates, demons, vampires, werewolves, sorcerers and witches in his road for personal salvation. Despite his god- fearing Christian beliefs, he never had any problem with dispensing justice by the sword and musket.
Basically, Solomon Kane was an unlikable fundamentalist bastard and his human enemies often happened to be savages from darkest Africa, devious Arab or Jewish necromancers and other charming stereotypes. OK, you ‘d never call Howard enlightened or anything. He never left his native Texas and he was definitely a man of his time, but his stories have the primal power of a Frazetta painting and completely transcend their origin to become some of the best adventure fiction ever (comparable to Robert Louis Stevenson and H. Rider Haggard).
Which brings us to this film. Michael J. Bassett is a new director and his project went through a lot of production setbacks, before the excellent word of mouth gave it a shot. It’s a modestly budgeted affair, but that’s not much of a problem. Apart from some mediocre CGI effects, the film looks really good. Crucially, Bassett is a true Howard fan and remembers what John Milius with his crappy Schwarzenegger Conan movie ignored completely: That those stories had more in common with Lovecraft and horror fiction than with any “heroic” fantasy. The setting has all the oppressive atmosphere of a Medieval wasteland that never existed. A place crawling with occult forces, human heads rotting on spikes and black mud. It’s a Ronnie James Dio song come to life and it rocks.
The film’s greatest asset though, is James Purefoy. He was great in HBO’ s Rome, but never had a breakthrough role. Well, casting him was an inspired move. He plays it completely straight. Kane is not a hero, or a trickster. He is a former warrior who tries to renounce his violent ways (without much success). The intensity of the character could have been boring, but Purefoy is such a badass with the sword that you can’t wait to see him unleash hell.
Pete Postlethwaite and Max von Sidow (who by my calculation must be around 173 years old by now) offer some character actor prestige and Jason Flemyng is the obligatory evil magician. You always need an evil magician in these things. Unfortunately, Flemyng is the least convincing evil magician ever. I feel bad for saying this, as I ‘ve run into him in London once at the time of his Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels success and he was very nice and polite, but he really is miscast here.
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend Solomon Kane unreservedly. The script is way too predictable and trite to offer any real surprises and that really hurts the film. It is however a really good try and I ‘d love it if it was the first in a series of films, starring Purefoy. And lets face it, the big- budget, studio version of Conan they are going to make is probably going to be a piece of crap anyway.
(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)





















“A puritan traveler with a dark past and a bad attitude, he always used to stumble across pirates, demons, vampires, werewolves, sorcerers and witches in his road for personal salvation.”
In what way was Kane’s past “dark”? The only references – and the same ones Bassett used to justify his origin story – were one line in “Blades of the Brotherhood” where he “lead a rout of ungodly men,” and at the end where he suggests “his soul’s salvation” as a *possible* reason for his wanderlust.
As for “bad attitude”, I can’t imagine where that came from. He comes across as an amazingly decent soul, whose only “bad attitude” is when he gets all pious and holier-than-thou against his foes – and when his foes are pirates, rapists, scoundrels and sorcerers, he’s no worse than Batman is.
“Basically, Solomon Kane was an unlikable fundamentalist bastard”
I really don’t see it. Kane is the sort of guy who fights genuine evil – demons, devils, murderers, rapists, slavers – and doesn’t go after the horrors. Whenever he meets a young man, he’s harsh, but he’s also empathetic: when he meets young women, he’s kind and gentle. Not much of a bastard there. Indeed, out of all Howard’s protagonists, he’s probably the most traditionally “heroic” out of all of them – definitely more than Conan.
“and his human enemies often happened to be savages from darkest Africa, devious Arab or Jewish necromancers and other charming stereotypes.”
This isn’t borne out by the stories at all. Just going by the completed tales, the most common ethnicity Kane faces as a foe – not counting supernatural threats – are white Europeans.
“Red Shadows” – A white Frenchman, with a secondary black villain (and a secondary protagonist who is black)
“Skulls in the Stars” – A white Englishman
“Rattle of Bones” – A different white Frenchman
“The Moon of Skulls” – a black sorceress-queen
“The Hills of the Dead” – vampires (in addition to N’Longa, there is a sympathetic black couple who serve as supporting roles)
“The Footfalls Within” – Arab slavers (Kane actively aids black slaves in gaining their freedom from the Arabs)
“Wings in the Night” Winged monsters (again, Kane is working to help a black village from the supernatural threat)
“The Blue Flame of Vengeance” – a white Nederlander
“The Right Hand of Doom” – a jewish necromancer
While a sizeable minority of the villains are black (and being set in Africa how could it be otherwise?) the majority of foes Kane faces are, in fact, white. Three of the four incomplete Kane stories feature white villains. This criticism of Howard writing his heroes as facing mostly ethnic minorities has also been levelled at his Conan stories, and is just as untrue.
That Howard was a man of his times is obvious: there is a lot of stuff that, to modern eyes, would be considered insensitive and even offensive. That’s history. People thought differently then: it doesn’t make racism or stereotypes any less hurtful or wrong, but there comes a point where it’s just to be expected. What’s more worthy of note, to me, is that a 1930s white Texan still created a multitude of sympathetic black characters despite his environment: the wise, intelligent N’Longa, the sensitive, kindly Ace Jessel, the sympathetic couple from “Hills of the Dead.” Yes, Howard used stereotypes, but occasionally he rose above them.
“Crucially, Bassett is a true Howard fan and remembers what John Milius with his crappy Schwarzenegger Conan movie ignored completely: That those stories had more in common with Lovecraft and horror fiction than with any “heroic” fantasy.”
Bassett may profess to be a true Howard fan, but then, Milius said so too. I think Bassett made as many divergences from the source material as Milius did: for much of the film, Purefoy’s Kane is virtually unrecognizable, with only a few sparks of the character’s original fire showing through (though I agree that his performance was outstanding nonetheless.)
I’d be happy to see Purefoy return should a sequel be forthcoming, but Bassett would have a lot of making up to do.
by Al Harron on 24/06/2010 at 3:12 pm.
Those are all valid points Al. A few clarifications:
-As far as Kane’s dark past is concerned, I wasn’t referring to some specific Batman- style origin. After all, Howard never gave us one and I think that the whole origin thing doesn’t let the film take off (that’s one of the reason’s I want a sequel). I was thinking of the general atmosphere of doom that hangs on the character. He often comes across as weary and tortured in the stories and the famous poem “Solomon Kane’s Homecoming” has an obviously elegiac tone. His adventures seem to be taking a toll on him, or at least that was always my impression.
-OK, “fundamentalist bastard” might be taking it a bit far, but whether one likes the character or not is purely a matter of opinion. Kane is a puritan, on a mission from God to destroy evil. His single- mindedness always made him seem a bit dour to me. That is not a criticism of the stories though. It just means that I am more of an Elric, or Gray Mouser fan, than a Solomon Kane fan.
-You are more or less spot- on about the ethnicity of Kane’s foes. It’s been years since I read the stories, but a cursory glance in my library doesn’t come up with that many non- white villains. Nonetheless, Howard’s perceptions about race are a thorny subject- one that deserves far more space than we can give it here. I ‘d argue that the portrayal of black Africans in the Kane stories is often problematic. It’s not just a case of them being villains. Most (but not all) of the time they need saving from evil, with the help of their European protector, or they come across as exotic stereotypes (no matter how well- intentioned). Yes, Howard’s ideas were extremely common at the time (and were arguably milder than those of, say, Jack London, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Sax Rohmer, Lovecraft, H. Rider Haggard, etc). Plus, I think that, over the course of the stories, Kane’s attitude towards the Africans changes subtly, but I could be wrong as I haven’t read the stories in sequence. It’s just that, from a 21st century point of view it’s very difficult to assess the stories without considering their cultural baggage.
-My problem with the Conan movie has more to do with Schwarzenegger as a casting choice, than the sizeable departure from the stories. And I liked the Solomon Kane movie more because of Purefoy’s performance, than anything else. At least Bassett seems to be making more of an effort to capture the ambiance of the work. I agree that a second film would have to be far better than this one though.
Dimitris
by CnB on 24/06/2010 at 5:54 pm.